Physicists create world’s first multiverse of universes in the lab

Share This article

Researchers at the University of Maryland, College Park and Towson University are reporting that they have created multiple universes inside a laboratory-created multiverse — a world first.

To be exact, the researchers created a metamaterial — like those used to fashion invisibility cloaks — that, when light passes through it, multiple universes are formed within it. These universes, called Minkowski spacetimes, are similar to our own, except they more neatly tie up Einstein’s theory of special relativity by including time as a fourth dimension.

While this is rather extraordinary, the experimental setup is actually quite simple — though definitely rather unconventional. The multiverse is created inside a solution of cobalt in kerosene. This fluid isn’t usually considered a metamaterial, but lead researcher Igor Smolyaninov and co found that by applying a magnetic field, the ferromagnetic nanoparticles of cobalt line up in neat columns. When light passes through these columns, it behaves as if it’s in a Minkowski universe.

To create multiple universes, the researchers fine-tuned the amount of cobalt in the fluid until there wasn’t quite enough to form the nanocolumns. Natural variations in the fluid mean that some regions still have enough cobalt to form the columns, and thus new universes. As the fluid moves the columns collapse, multiple universes constantly pop in and out of existence.

There are two key takeaways here: First, metamaterials are usually rather hard to manufacture — and yet here the researchers have seemingly discovered a self-organizing metamaterial. Second, this is the first ever time that new universes have been created in a laboratory setting. This is about as bleeding-edge as it gets, so we’re not exactly sure what avenues of research this opens up, but Smolyaninov suggests that they could be used to study how particles behave in universes with different properties than our own. Our universe has fairly firm rules on how particles behave, but it might be interesting to create a pet universe where, say, photons have mass and light travels really slowly.

Post a Comment

In the context of the article, it appears that when they say “Multiple Universes”, they really mean a “simulation of multiple universes.”

Or, more accurately, a simulation of multiple timepoints of the same universe running concurrently.

Dammit. The more I try to rationalize their description of this experiment, the more confusing it gets.

http://www.facebook.com/richard.schroeder.148 Richard Schroeder

Yeah, I think we need someone with a better understanding of the research to write the article.

https://www.facebook.com/the.Ultimate.Parkour.SJ SJ

What they want to say is, the created similar substances which behave differently to a particular substance, or test.

chojin999

So all of a sudden these people got aliens-type technology to distort time-space to camouflage things inside the distortion and no one even questions how can that be possible?

http://www.facebook.com/people/Jon-Davis/100002104639401 Jon Davis

They thought about it, and did it. It’s what happens when you keep chipping at various rocks to see what happens to the flint arrow.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=520358893 facebook-520358893

That shows ignorance of science. They did no such thing. They did a science experiment that any grade 12 physics student can grasp and even reproduce.

You further show your ignorance when you don’t even understand the definition of what a universe is.

Unfortunately the story, and even the backing documentation don’t tell us if the people writing it understand what a universe really is.

jimmy glitzz

Wow, really? Your amazing ability to be condescending and cynical in no way lends to your credibility as an intelligent person. I would like to see some credentials, sir. PHD or just a prick?

Torqueobama

I have to admit to finding this confusing as well. By multiple universes are you implying that one or more temporal or physical axes in one layer are disjoint from other ‘layers’ in the fluid?

Paul Davis

Actually, I think they mean the spacetime signature of the included regions are not identical to the spacetime signature of the regions not included. Or, to be as specific as I know how, the cobalt defines a large but limited domain, within which subdomains of disjoint spacetime signature were created. But I could be wrong, the article isn’t overly explicit.

Torqueobama

I have to admit to finding this confusing as well. By multiple universes are you implying that one or more temporal or physical axes in one layer are disjoint from other ‘layers’ in the fluid?

Ronald Chong

Multi-verses of Universes, eh? So is that a microscopic universe they came up with? How do you define a universe? Isn’t it supposed to be incredibly huge?

http://www.facebook.com/people/Jon-Davis/100002104639401 Jon Davis

What do sentients see our universe as, from the outside…

http://www.facebook.com/devogod Kevin Shumaker

it doens’t need to be huge to be a universe. for all we know our entire universe is contained within a marble rolling across the floor of some even larger form of life in its own universe, and we are just part of a multi-verse, which would then be just one marble in a pile of other marbles.

chase

I like to think of it more as a ball of bread dough while the baker lets it sit, that explains the whole expanding for no apparent reason (that we can prove yet)

http://www.facebook.com/people/Joel-West/100002831030408 Joel West

I thought the reason was supposed to be the bang?

M Moore

I saw Men In Black too.

http://www.facebook.com/devogod Kevin Shumaker

lmao thats exactly what i was thinking of. i always think of that when i hear of ‘multiverse’ or parallel universes or anything of the sort.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=520358893 facebook-520358893

Universe by definition is all of reality. (or everything that is real and knowable). By definition that means everything that follows the laws of physics that we know. It is by definition infinite in size in 4 dimensions, it was neither created nor will ever end.

It appears that they think they have created (no indication if they have tested the properties of the other universes) windows into other universes that *may* have different rules than our own.

If true, this means that the multi-verse theory is likely correct and that at every decision point all possible decisions are taken in different universes. The further away from the decision point into the past, the further away and thus the less like our universe that universe would be.

The question still is, is this just a bubble of something native to our universe, or is it truly a real universe that we’re getting a glimpse into? And even then, would the laws of physics in those universes really be different than our own? (i.e. is that a decision point, or “just is”.)

http://www.DaftGadgets.com Jason Scott

If this definition is true, then the universe of an ant is different than the universe of a human, so you can still call them different universes, unless you think their is nothing outside of human perception.

http://www.facebook.com/mike.paulson.581 Mike Paulson

From what I understand of the idea of a multiverse (which admittedly isn’t a lot), a universe would be any space within which its contents cannot be aware of anything outside of its boundaries. The size of a universe, relatively speaking, could be anything from microscopic to nearly infinite.

My question on this idea: in order for these “micro-universes” to indeed be universes, anything inside its boundary cannot perceive anything outside the boundary, so if that is the case, how can we perceive its internal characteristics? Is a universe’s boundary like a one-way mirror?

I’m always fascinated by the physics of these types of bleeding-edge experiments.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=520358893 facebook-520358893

Exactly the problem. The act of observation requires that light or something else escapes, which would be measurable by anyone inside the universe. Any attempt to input light or anything else would be measurable inside the universe. Inputing something that doesn’t exist in that unvierse would likely result in it’s destruction because of the paradox. Allowing light or energy out would cause entropy and increase the speed in which that universe decayed into low level heat.

Incidently this is also why time travel is impossible.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=520358893 facebook-520358893

Incorrect. An ant can know everything we can. They may not be able to because they are not rational and not self-aware, but there is no reason that they couldn’t, given the intellect, and tools.

Human perception includes everything that we can directly and indirectly measure with instruments that we develop. There are still things in the universe that exist that we cannot yet measure directly, but the point is that they are measurable, we just have to learn how. Any rational species can discover the how to do so. We are not dependent upon our senses to be able to perceive things, we’re dependent upon our intellect.

If something can never be measured, then it can never affect the universe, thus it is not real, and thus is not part of the universe and not part of reality. (“for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” demands this.) i.e. even if we could not directly see the Higgs Bison, we could see it’s effect, so we knew it was real. Similarly we cannot see dark matter (or whatever it is) but we know it is real, because it effects the universe and as a result, we’re able to measure it and know about it indirectly. In short, there is nothing in the universe that doesn’t affect something else, and thus because of Newton’s law, we can know something exists even if we can’t perceive it directly.

Of course the religious in the room will get upset by that statement, but if you think about it logically you’ll recognize the truth of the statement.

Once you recognize that the universe is infinite in 4 dimensions, it also answers chicken and the egg etc: i.e. the question is not relevant because of the nature of infinite time.

Aristotle, more than 2400 years ago first recognized this and summed it up as “A is A”. Kant denied reality and then wrote an entire tortured book trying to convince people that we couldn’t know reality and thus our perception, because our senses are flawed, is incomplete and can never be complete and thus we are always doomed to ignorance. Socialists seized on this and ran with it to justify their enslavement of individuals to the collective and their terrible crimes as a result. The Communist Manifesto is a direct result of Marx’s fascination with Kant and his hatred of his own Jewish people and further fascination with the tenants of the Roman Catholic church and his attempt to justify that position rationally. Of course he didn’t bother to finish it because he was a lazy lout that wanted a free ride, so his publisher Engles had to finish it for him, thus proving the point, but that’s a story for another occasion.

You either believe that we’re doomed to ignorance and never being able to know anything for certain, or you understand that everything is knowable and that the sum of what is knowable is by definition the contents of the universe. In short: Either you believe in magic, or you don’t. The result of believing in magic is human slavery at the hands of the wielders of said magic. The result of believing in reality is freedom as evidenced by the founding fathers of the United States repeatedly referencing Aristotle in their writings.

So my questions still stand, and are salient to the article.

http://twitter.com/h2opolopunk Adam Dubbin

lol @ “Higgs Bison”

Excellent post.

Corey Gorgon

The definition of universe John Galt is using is not the definition of universe used in the article, or by science.

Anubhav Singh

At the very least, the statement “It is by definition infinite in size in 4 dimensions” is incorrect sir. Nobody knows but if one believes even one iota in the Big Bang Theory, an infinite universe is outta the question :)

James Hancock

1. Just because physical matter hasn’t reached to infinity, doesn’t mean that all of reality is limited.

2. The universe by definition of the word (see below) means that it is all of everything. Thus it could not begin or end because that would require something outside of the universe to initiate the process (and/or end it). This is not an assumption, this is proper use of the English language.

Corey Gorgon

A universe is not all of reality. A universe is all of a reality that follows the same laws of physics, such as the strength of gravity, particle mass and what dimensions are available. One could also assume that the universe is located in a specific location (location used for lack of a better term), as two universes that had the same laws could theoretically exist and not interact. The multiverse is the set of all universes in existence.

James Hancock

Sorry, but by definition of the word, it is: Uni-verse. Uni means 1. (As in Uni-cycle, dashes added for emphasis)

If you have a theory of a multi-verse (note the change) then something must house those multiple verses and that would then be the universe. And to be clear, if there are other verse other than our own that have different laws of physics they would be incompatible and would annihilate each other immediately and nothing from our verse would be able to survive for any long period of time there and visa-versa thus creating a boundary that makes my point anyhow.

This is the fundamental problem with the way language is taught in schools. You’re perverting definition and don’t even realize it because no one bothered to teach you definition and roots of words and the vital importance of definition in understanding. It is this slippery version of language that allows politicians to lie and cheat and get away with it. Please educate yourself on language.

James Hancock

Sorry, but by definition of the word, it is: Uni-verse. Uni means 1. (As in Uni-cycle, dashes added for emphasis)

If you have a theory of a multi-verse (note the change) then something must house those multiple verses and that would then be the universe. And to be clear, if there are other verse other than our own that have different laws of physics they would be incompatible and would annihilate each other immediately and nothing from our verse would be able to survive for any long period of time there and visa-versa thus creating a boundary that makes my point anyhow.

This is the fundamental problem with the way language is taught in schools. You’re perverting definition and don’t even realize it because no one bothered to teach you definition and roots of words and the vital importance of definition in understanding. It is this slippery version of language that allows politicians to lie and cheat and get away with it. Please educate yourself on language.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Jon-Davis/100002104639401 Jon Davis

Meanwhile in the mathematical infrastructure of multiverse-233 an algorithmic lightning pulse bursts through a thick sludge of numbers roiling around in a pool…

http://www.facebook.com/travism1 Travis Martin

From what I’m gathering, these aren’t REALLY new, separate universes. They’re just simulations of other universes within our own. Am I right?

andykisaragi

can you explain the difference?

wsxedc

A seperate universe has a own spacetime. It is not part of our universe, the only theoretical way to interact with a different universe is using a wormhole and this also only works if brane theory is true.

dwightstegall

I hope this kind of research doesn’t come back to bite us on the ass one day. I’m afraid that messing with nature can have nasty repercussions that we have no way of dealing with. :(

Anubhav Singh

Pretty much anything you do can come back to bite u in the ass :) Does that mean u give up all action? Life is about messing things and dealing with repercussions my friend :)

fff

they have BECOME GODS

TheMarchingMorons

the “they” is God.

https://www.facebook.com/the.Ultimate.Parkour.SJ SJ

You got it wrong, friend.
Gods [that's what you call them] are nothing but type 5 organisms.
We are merely type 0.7.
So Don’t lose hope…one day we’ll be a type 5 civilization.

Zephir Zephir

This is just a semantic journalism. Before some time the Chinese demonstrated the black hole behavior with metamaterial foam – and nobody did call it a “multiverse” that time – despite the principle of this experiment was exactly the same.

More explicitly, as bosons, they’re understood as strictly massless. That being said, the can be imbued with mass with changes in media (deviations from c in vacuum). But this introduces another degree of freedom in Coulomb’s law and is therefore generally ignored from what I’ve seen.

user 9693

sorry I don’t know much but then how will you explain the dual nature of light

NerfJihad

DUAL NATURE OF LIGHT MEANS THAT LIGHT IS A WAVE OF PROBABILITY (HERE’S WHERE IT PROBABLY IS) AND A PARTICLE (THERE IT IS)

PARTICLE DOESN’T MEAN IT HAS MASS

http://www.facebook.com/gilbertn2 Gilbert Ng

That’s just Walter Bishop creating a pocket universe.

Vidya Wasi

Author please define “universe” and “multiverse” for us that are questioning your intelligence and validity of this article.

This sounds like bullshit. This is not what i know of as a universe or multiverse.
Sounds like some american forgot to look up the proper definition of the words before using them again, sigh.

If a roasted bread looks like jesus by this logic the toaster have created jesus because it looks like jesus.

A kid could draw a spiral that looks like a observed black hole, these this mean the kid havecreated a mini-black hole ?

Now to the other question: how do they know this is how a universe / multiverse looks like ?

Where did the real scientists go?
Those that did not play with words and find loopholes in definitions and make up stuff like such as “negative temperature”.

blahblah98

That’s exactly what I said: This sounds like bullshit.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1637688145 Timothy Beck

This is what everyone who doesn’t understand what science is says. The word simulation might help you get a grasp on the concept.

Niall O’Connor

Simulation… Like what computers are used for. We use them to train Jet pilots to some degree without the expense or danger of flying a real Jet ( Which can be expensive and dangerous )

So these guys are “Simulating” the things that define our universe in some experiment and are hopeful that this research can yield more understanding of how our universe works.

Without the debate this is what the author is trying to convey in a nutshell.. . Well after reading all this debate I can only say one thing. Lab coats are sexy. Seriously sexy. In fact I threatened to divorce my wife if she didn’t get on board. I said “hey… you and your rubber head can walk out that door if you don’t simulate a good time for me right now” . . Of course none of that really happened yet :-)

Your strawman doesn’t hold up against an actual quote. Educate yourself, like I just did by highlighting the thing I didn’t know, right clicking (or command clicking, if you’re weak of mind) and selecting the line that reads “search google for” and the thing you just highlighted.

For those disinclined to click, I’ll try and summarize.

Scientists have discovered a way to use light to simulate time in a suspension of magnetic particles using magnetism to simulate gravity’s effects on relatively large clumps of matter.

Instead of the weak force that holds you to the ground, they’re using the strong force that keeps children’s art on refrigerators. Instead of whatever it is that’s causing time, we’re using particles that travel in straight lines until they hit something. Einstein’s contributions to modern science work best if time moves in a straight line, so by using photons, we get to effectively control how time moves in these little wads of cobalt stuck together with big magnets. Also, by varying the magnetic field, we can change the force of gravity. time, gravity, and matter, you have the same raw ingredients that made this universe, so if their explanation is correct, there should be observable similarities to this universe that would allow us to make further guesses to test and see how to test if that’s how this universe works.

(pant, wheeze, wrist cramp)

But yeah. You’re obviously so much smarter than these college boys who probably are all gay for each other in their pretty white dress looking labcoats, waving beakers of brightly colored (It’s obviously black in the picture I don’t even know where you’d get that idea) fluids around and talking faster than you can using words that make you mad and drunk and full of righteous indignation at not being paid the respect your implicit or explicit threat of violence your presence provides deserves.

Of course I’m using run-on sentences. they’re more fun to conjugate.

tl;dr GRAVITY = MAGNETS, TIME = PHOTONS. LIKE DWARF FORTRESS.

andykisaragi

I THINK I LOVE YOU

http://twitter.com/technegro Techngro

Nowhere in the Wiki link that you provided does it mention a universe (I know cause I searched). It refers to Minkowski Space.

So then I searched for universe in wiki and found this:

Universe
The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of existence, including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy. Definitions and usage vary and similar terms include the cosmos, the world and nature.

Universe (mathematics)
In mathematics, and particularly in set theory and the foundations of mathematics, a universe is a class that contains (as elements) all the entities one wishes to consider in a given situation. There are several versions of this general idea, described in the following sections.

So…the author of this article should have made it clear which of these two definitions he was referring to when he used the term ‘universe’. The common definition is what most people would immediately think of, which isn’t the definition that the author meant.

So it isn’t about the gay college boys (whatever that means). It’s about the author failing in his fundamental duty as a writer, which is to explain correctly and clearly the information that he’s trying to convey to the reader.

NerfJihad

The author doesn’t differentiate between the two because the minkowski spaces in the simulation are experimental models of the universe.

I’m not defending the author’s failings to clearly show the point of his article, just trying to clarify it as best I can and refute an anti science comment.

I used the gay college boys as a strawman to ridicule his contention that this was a waste of money.

http://www.facebook.com/richard.schroeder.148 Richard Schroeder

“I used the gay college boys as a strawman to ridicule his contention that this was a waste of money.”

Vidya Wasi didn’t say that–at least not in the comment to which you replied.

Any model is like the thing being modeled in some ways and unlike it in other ways. I can’t speak for Vidya Wasi, but I think many readers are puzzled as to how a column of atoms is like a universe. Yes, the light may be interacting differently with various columns, but light behaves differently in air, water and glass. Why wouldn’t a glass jar filled with glass beads of varying refractive indices be just as valid a model of the multiverse as columns of cobalt atoms?

Astro Mathman

My understanding of this is that Minkowski space defines a ‘universe’ where some events are space-like and some time-like, and it defines the causal connection (or lack of) between events. So I’m guessing that the events in each column are causally disconnected from the events in the other columns. Each column is thus its own universe where any quantum event that occurs can only influence events within that column and cannot influence any quantum event in any other column. It’s more of a mathematical universe, though still ‘real’.

http://twitter.com/h2opolopunk Adam Dubbin

Sounds like a fine explanation to me.

bryanklong

Mathematical universes are not real, in the sense of our physical reality. Mathematical universes are conceptual systems, real only in the sense that we can think about them. Mathematics, however, can be used to model the real universe, and through extensions of the math, suggest that there may indeed be other real universes, causualy disconnected from our own spacetime. There is not yet, and perhaps cannot be, any physical evidence supporting that hypothesis. But I like to believe it.

http://www.facebook.com/aemilius.aetius Aemilius Aetius

This is really cool. LOL, I can smell the fear in some scared chickens…

For everybody who didn’t read until the end and can’t put 2+2 together, let me explain what a universe is. A universe is simply a place in space and time that abides by it’s own laws of physics. Naturally, the “universes” created aren’t going to be what we know as the standard definition of being that large space that’s continually expanding around us. Anytime we hear the word, we think of a separate piece of space completely, where a second universe is neatly lined up next to our own. Unfortunately, that’s not what it is.
What was actually created was a space inside of a piece of cobalt in which the laws of physics seem to act completely different from our own. For instance, gravity may not work inside of those spaces, or light particles are just waves, and not in superposition. We really can’t be told any more, but don’t worry, we’re not going around creating and extinguishing vast civilizations or anything like that, since I know that’s what’s going through a lot of people’s heads.

James Clark

The universe is large, relative to what?

ohmy2012

so you’re saying within these universes they have different laws of physics than our universe?
they’ve been able to create new laws of physics? seriously? time is
relative so how do they know it has it’s own time dimension?

I argue that your statement is inaccurate. The so-called laws of physics, if they appear to be violated, obviously are simply misstated laws. A law of physics cannot, by definition, be violated. It can be wrong, or incompletely stated, but the actual law, if correct, cannot be contradicted. If it appears that physical laws apply differently to this energized cobalt-in-kerosine setup, then that tells ME one thing and only one thing: we now have more (and better) information about how the laws of physics ACTUALLY should be written (perhaps we should append them?). There are no exceptions to our universe. Everything that exists, exists inside this universe- this ONE universe. It’s like the old Hindu statement, “Everything is a part of that which is.” I consider this universe to be, “That which is.” Nothing can be outside of it, as everything is a part of it. The laws of physics cannot be violated- stilted science may misunderstand that these laws are not the be-all and end-all. These so-called laws that we have constructed are OUR interpretation of the universe. If they appear to be violated, it simply means that they are an incomplete or incorrect explanation of what is actually occurring here, in the only universe there is.

http://www.facebook.com/down.with.it Jay Rock

Hmmm…..are you claiming that our universe is infinite? I would suggest that it has infinite “potential”…but that is not the same as “Everything that exists, exists inside this universe.” I posit that beyond what constitutes our material universe, or more specifically what our universe is expanding “in” to is an infinite volume with no space (except for the space our universe “takes up”). Therefore, our universe’s physical properties can only be perceived here (down just short of wave collapse), but there is every possibility that other universe “spaces” exist “in” “volume with no space” and they absolutely could have physical laws quite different from our own. Pertaining to this article…..these type of “universes” could be used only to test what our physical laws could act like in differing proportions to one another, …but we could not “witness” new physical laws which were outside these. See: Measurement problem

jimmy glitzz

What’s it like being so smart?

Paul Davis

Ok, you don’t get it. Fine. Quit with trying to act like you understand when you obviously don’t.

Emil Lundberg

Huh. What still bugs me though is the supposition that a subverse be allowed to violate the laws of its superverse (our universe). Because no one would deny that these little multiversa exist within our universe, right? But I suppose much might be achieved by bending spacetime in suitable ways, so that the laws of the superverse still hold within the subverse but appear different to an outside observer.

jimmy glitzz

You didn’t put together 2+2. For all of those who read this guys brilliant post to the end and can’t find the answer, its 4. I’ll ask you as well, what’s it like being so smart? How do you tolerate being surrounded by imbeciles? Must be really tough.

http://www.facebook.com/richard.schroeder.148 Richard Schroeder

It sounds to me like you are just making wild guesses about the meaning of the article.

http://dbakeca.com Dbakeca Italia

very interesting stuff, good topic

James Foley

All this sounds like it should be on a round table forum on George Noory’s overnight Coast to Coast AM radio talk show. http://www.coasttocoastam.com/

goku vegeta

THEY WOULDN’T MAKE GOOD SCIENTIFIC REPORTERS. THEY DON’T UNDERSTAND THE TERMS!

phil_weinberger

Have you ever noticed that the less people know about a subject, the more sure they are in their convictions about said subject?

Just sayin’…

http://www.facebook.com/paras.sharma.330 Paras Sharma

well said brother… important life lesson!!

http://www.facebook.com/LizardSF Ian Harac

Are you sure of that?

phil_weinberger

No, I’m not sure of that, It’s just an observation that *I’ve* made based on my admittedly limited experiences. I would never try to assert my ignorant opinion as fact. That would be wrong. ;)

The thing that bothers me is that, by the logic of multiverse theory in general, they didn’t ‘create’ the other universe but DISCOVERED it– I find no evidence in the article to support the claim that they created as opposed to discovered the properties of another universe. Perhaps a better way of describing it is they created an observable link between universes, which would, from what I understand of the science involved, be much more accurate…

http://www.facebook.com/grey580 Alberto Solano

Wait a tic….

“like those used to fashion invisibility cloaks”

We have invisibility cloaks? Since when?

sushilpershad

Why do We disturber Peace and Harmony? Religion and science both seek
the cause of Creation, One with faith the other with Knowledge.Our world
is a Grain of sand in the vast ocean of creation.Don’t delude yourself
that you will find the cause of creation.Stop before you destroy
yourself thinking “YOU” are the cause of creation.Let’s Enjoy “THE PLAY
OF CREATION” Seeking “Love in Happiness” with Devotion.!!

The title and wording of this article is sensationalist and misleading; the author should have made it much more clear that a highly specialized and specific (mathematical) term for the word ‘universe’ is intended, or else he should have picked a different term. As it is, while interesting, there is nothing particularly world-changing about this development, at least compared to any other development in theoretical science with no immediate practical applications.

Julia Cyan

The usual case of gimmicky headlines. If you read the original article from ArXiv http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6055
The exact wording of the Conclusions section says “These regions behave
as transient 2+1 dimensional Minkowski spacetimes which temporarily
appear and disappear inside a larger metamaterial “multiverse”.”
Please note “behave as” and that multiverse is in quotes.﻿

carol.geiger

What a crap! Don’t they have nothing else to do? Washing up perhaps? They got many ‘verses’ in their head……….

Strange. Consider this. Calculate the acceleration/speed of the Universe boundary with respect to our inertial frame required to predict time dilation such that at that boundary, expansion has only taken 6500 years, but because the “fuel that space needs to expand is time (essentially what special/general; relativity tells us)” we see the boundary as 15 billion years old. I would love for a theoretical physicist to tackle this. The way I see it: the Universe is only 6500 years old, at its boundary, but from our time dilated perspective it is 15 billion years old. That is: BOTH Theology, and science are correct. Theology and Science will one day merge, and all the poor self loving atheists will be caught with their pants down, gaping in shock as the great mysteries that elude them are shown to be accessible only with the aid of Theology (Paul Davies is somehwat on the right track)

Another one: Entropy: All thermal systems will decay from organized distributions to a statistically random but “even” thermal distribution eventually decaying to absolute zero. Spiritual Entropy: We all have free will, and can do what we want as individuals, but in the end spiritual entropy will result in the complete decay of the human condition to spiritual nothingness, without the need for strict predistination of any individual to either good or bad life choices. I could go on ….

Tim

So who’s going to buy their wife a Minkowski coat? First! BAM!

bryanklong

Step 1: Forget the article above which is either intentionally sensationalist or else reflects a great deal of ignorance. Step 2: Read the experimenter’s abstract and article, available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6055. Note the author’s words: “As a first step, let us recall the ANALOGY between extraordinary light propagation in hyperbolic metamaterials and world lines in 3D Minkowski spacetime” [emphasis added]. In this sentence and elsewhere, the author is making clear that what they have created are interesting MODELS of particle worldlines in other, hypothetical universes with different spacetime properties. In the model, real photons of our universe propagate through real metamaterials of our universe. The unusual behaviors of those photons due to the characteristics of the metamaterial (magnetic nanoparticles in a ferro-fluid) theoretically MIMIC the behavior of a particle in another universe moving through that universe’s unusual spacetime (which is, by the way a 2D “flatworld” plus the dimension of time, not a 3D plus time universe such as our own. In the experiment, each transient self-organized column of nanoparticles is a model of hypothetical other universe, hence the whole experiment may be considered to be modeling a multiverse. No universes were harmed in the making of this experiment.

http://www.facebook.com/TheMikeStar Michael Grant

We want to run such simulations as interesting fact-finding experiments. You inevitably have to wonder if there’s someone who’s running our universe simulation as such an experiment.

Wherez Waldo

Junk journalism about an interesting experiment.

http://www.facebook.com/Wolfy15 Tiffany Sullivan

This article is written in a manner that is sensationalist and is incorrect. Regardless, I am intrigued by the concept and experiment. Very interesting.

Chris Roy

The experiment creates microscopic areas of space which follow ever so slightly different laws of physics than our own universe. If we define a universe as “A region of existence in which physical laws govern the workings of said region”, then we can come to the conclusion that these tiny regions of space-time variation are separate universes.

dr. noel

utter rubbish.

Tony K

Anyone familiar with law of conservation of energy? This is not universe or multi verse theory it is condensed matter theory. Simple.

Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Copyright 1996-2015 Ziff Davis, LLC.PCMag Digital Group All Rights Reserved. ExtremeTech is a registered trademark of Ziff Davis, LLC. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Ziff Davis, LLC. is prohibited.